/atheism/ - Atheism

Clearly bullshit. There is an answer apparently buried in biology: http://news.gsu.edu/2014/09/18/research-shows-human-sense-fairness-evolved-favor-long-term-cooperation/

Moral behavior, we can then argue, is any behavior which supports long-term benefits for group of agents which exhibit the behavior. Moral relativism is simply what we get when we examine this group behavior at an individual level or one group vs another, which I feel is misguided; morals vary from individual to individual, yet still "average" a group benefit. We shouldn't be surprised when we see a few deviating heavily from the norm in either direction.

As for how religion factors into this, it seems obvious given the above, that a group "rightness" eventually becomes codified in myth.

>An atheist cannot be a moral person
Why?

>Because morals come from God and without God you have no morals
I reject the existence of God. God is a concept invented by man. Therefore, morals sourced from God are still just from man. Rather than invent a fictional construct upon which to base my morals, I'll base them on scienctific evidence and empathy.


Any way to make this more succint or bulletproof?

You can be an atheist and be a humanist.

Humanity before gods, I say.

>>1200
>Does this mean they desire to hurt people but only contain their mindless rage out of fear of the sky wizard?
I think people like that were getting taught religion during the part of childhood where they were developing their sense of right and wrong. I don't think so much that they naturally want to hurt people as they believe that's how people should feel on the inside. Believing that means they're more likely to nurse a grudge because instead of going "wow, that's really negative and has a bad effect on my mood" they go "well, this is what people are like on the inside. Good thing I have religion to tell me they'll burn in hell for eternity and I'll live in paradise with my family."

>>1203
I lack your optimistism.
History has shown that devote men and women are capable of doing terrible things when given the blessings of their God.

>>1205
Well sure. It's not some inherent characteristic people have. It's the rationalization that allows them to ignore the socially-conscious emotions we've evolved as a species that normally stop us from committing atrocities. I don't think they desire to hurt people. I think they hurt people because they think they're supposed to. I think they hurt people because they feel they've been given commands from an authority to do so.

Wiki related. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

>>1215
I don't disagree at all. I was just pointing out that the premise they accept has no rational basis. It's simply handed down from the authority. The Milgram experiment is relevant because it highlights just how flimsy the authority has to be and how suggestible humans are.

>>1221

You are turning away from the true horror of it, and I understand why.

But you must face it.

This is the prayer of Saint Francis.

"Lord, make me an instrument of Your peace;
Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
Where there is injury, pardon;
Where there is doubt, faith;
Where there is despair, hope;
Where there is darkness, light;
And where there is sadness, joy.


O Divine Master,
Grant that I may not so much seek
To be consoled as to console;
To be understood, as to understand;
To be loved, as to love;
For it is in giving that we receive,
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
And it is in dying that we are born to Eternal Life.
Amen."


It is a nice thing, yes,,,

But the religious mindset enabled a person who got on his knees every morning and recited this prayer and meant it to stick a red hot piece of iron up someone's ass.

Because if the person they were torturing confessed and recanted they would be saved from hell.

They believed they were doing the right thing.

In Milgram's experiment, people obeyed but they felt bad. They felt so bad that you couldn't do that experiment today because of the emotional distress it inflicts on the subjects. It's unethical.

Only faith in the sky wizard can make you inflict that sort of pain and feel good about it.

Morality is largely based on the Golden Rule. Even though every major religion has it as a tenet, you don't need religion to understand why it makes sense. You only need empathy, which is something we evolved as a social species.

>>1223
I'm not saying the Milgram experiment is a 1:1 comparison with the Inquisition. I'm saying the mechanism at play in the experiment is where religious rationalization begins.

I know the prayer of Saint Francis. Having been "Catholic," I've heard it more than enough, although the version I heard has slightly different phrasing. I used to hear it every week and internalize it. I also was taught (among other hateful things) to believe that homosexuality was immoral and that I should out homosexuals so the community could stone them. That and other things I internalized and believed, not because I necessarily thought it was better for the people involved, but because I thought God made it moral. While I was still religious I would have been totally willing to stone a gay or if I met one, even though I had no hate for gay people whatsoever. I don't know if I would have felt good about it, but I definitely would have done it. And I would tell people I felt good about it so they wouldn't be discouraged from doing it themselves.

I don't have the luxury of "turning away from the true horror of it." I used to be one of them. Fortunately I came around before I left the bubble. Otherwise I would have wound up one of those people in a mental institution for murdering someone because God told me to do it.

>>1190
Morality, in one sense, is simply a code of values and principles by which a person chooses to live their life. In this sense, all sentient humans are moral beings, including self-proclaimed nihilists. The idea that a belief in God is necessary for this is ridiculous. The reason people hold this view is because they see morality as a set of commands to be obeyed, but this is in fact antithetical to the concept of morality. An action is not moral unless it is done voluntarily, rather than out of force or threat of punishment.

In another sense however, morality consists of doing "the right thing". In this sense I believe a secular morality that requires one to make every decision based on reason is unequivocally superior to a religious one which requires one to blindly follow commandments. Reason should be the foundation of all our judgments, moral or otherwise, because it is the only way for human beings to find true understanding. (Note that this argument is not directed against people who see religious texts merely as a guide to morality, a source of wisdom and sound advice, but at people who think moral authority comes exclusively from religious texts.)

There you have it. I'll admit there are some holes that you'd probably have to write a whole book to fill in, but that's the gist of it.

>>1190

If a member of an Abrahamic religion tells you this, you can easily boast that you are of superior moral character to the vile creature known as Yahweh as his crimes against humanity are detailed very clearly in the Old Testament. If anything, not taking instructions from a barbaric, genocidal freak makes you a person of better moral character.

If the person questioning you is simply a deist, the response is that the task of answering moral dilemmas is a heavy burden, and the mature thing to do is accept that burden as the responsibility which comes with our incredible power of cognitive thought. To attempt to delegate this responsibility away to an imaginary sky daddy is childish. Defining morality is hard work, and the proper thing to do is not to lazily blow it off or push it onto someone else.

>>1966
well said.

What is your personal morality? Will I an atheist fit most of your morals?

Don't kill? I agree that murder is wrong. Don't steal? Yes, I can agree that theft is wrong. Chances are, aside from morals derived from rituals, I'd agree with a lot of your morality.

On the other hand, not following a strict set of morals allows me to consider things on an individual basis.

Don't steal is a set in stone rule for theists. I however have no set in stone rules. If a man steals bread to feed himself and his family, I would be able to forgive that transgression. However if don't steal is something set in stone by a God that cannot change his mind, that would logically mean that if you follow that God's morality, you would be forced to condemn that man.

So in such a case, I would hold myself more "moral" than you.

If you need an omni-observant god from preventing you doing immoral acts then you must be a psychopath, devoid of empathy.

Loaded question for me.

On the one hand, an atheist can be a "moral" person insofar as they can abide by a metaphysical code of conduct.

On the other hand, I would say an intellectually honest atheist cannot believe in actually existing morals, that is, disembodied universal laws which are above man's discretion to follow.

How is a believer moral? Because your god tells you how to act?
That's not morality. Just obedience. And who's to say your god is moral, since they themself have no god? Judgement must come from somewhere, whether it's from you, your god or your god's god.
That claim is basically saying humans cannot into judgement and should not practice independent thought. I wholeheartedly disagree.

morality - principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. i dont know (insert sarcasm here) do we have morals?

Studies have proven that morals are neurologically visible, and hard wired in the brain. Morals are things that characterize humans, and necessary to build any kind of functional civilization and society.
>>1200
No, those people are probably moral too because they think morals are some kind of absolute, universal truths.

What do you say when theist say you have "no grounds" for morality and your morality is subjective. I honestly find the idea of "objective" morality meaningless. Not only do I find the attempts at refuting the Euthyphro dilemma unsatisfactory but even if we found objective morality I would be meaningless. Its a type of "not even wrong" problem. So what if it does or does not exist. It changes nothing, The universe wouldn't be distinguishable. Rape victims wouldn't suffer more or less. All that would "change" is some actions get the official title of being morally good or bad but it would have no actual effect on anything.

What if a God revealed himself and said it was morally good to increase human suffering. Should we follow this? Fuck no we shouldn't.

Morality should be a bottom up approach that promotes our "subjective" human lives, things that increases are health, prosperity, well being and minimize harm are whats moral to us. The top down is morality is well slave morality as Nietzsche would have said. Thats not to say I think all of what Nietzsche calls slave morality is bad, but the idea that we should obey and follow instead of creating a morality that benefits us drives me crazy.

The first time someone beat you up, or stole from you on a playground, or when your parents punished you for something you didn't do, you who were still a child realized there were just and unjust deeds. We don't need God to tell us right from wrong.